pfc_list_tasks

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions pagination but does not disclose ordering (e.g., newest first), default listing behavior (all tasks or only active ones), or other behavioral details like whether the list is paginated by default.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence with 6 words, front-loaded with the key action. No unnecessary information. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists (not shown but noted), so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it is vague about the scope of 'tracked tasks' and does not mention default behavior (e.g., whether it lists all tasks or only incomplete ones). Minimally complete for a simple list tool with pagination.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'pagination' context, but does not enhance understanding of the parameters beyond what the schema already explains (skip_newest and limit). This is adequate but not enriching.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it lists tracked PFC tasks with pagination, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like pfc_check_task_status (checks a specific task) and pfc_execute_task (executes tasks). However, it could be more explicit about what 'tracked tasks' entails.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for task status or execution). The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.